To paraphrase this whiner:
"We don't know the background of these people. They could have domestic abuse charges against them"

Gee, I guess she thinks she should know the background of every person that owns a gun. Obviously she doesn't know the law and the fact that someone with domestic abuse charges against them will not be able to purchase a handgun (legally).

Then her comment that the Second Amendment only gives one the right to have the weapon in their home. I don't remember reading anything in the Second Amendment that limits where your right to bear arms begins or ends. As for Second Amendment rights versus community rights...never mind. I'm not going there....... :mad:

But then, this interview is in the Peoples' Яepublik of Kalifornia. Nuff said.

bkt

12-11-2010 02:56 PM

She is asked that if police see someone open carrying, can't police ask for ID, and she says they cannot. This may be based on jurisdiction, but courts have ruled in the past that police certainly may briefly detain someone and ask for ID.

She says: "Their second amendment rights end where the community's rights begin." That tells me all I need to know about her. She's a collectivist and not for individuals' rights. This is very important.

She then says "The supreme court said they have a right to have a gun in their home but that doesn't mean they have a right to take it out into the community and put the community at risk." She's twisting the ruling around. The ruling went against D.C. and Chicago laws that said people didn't have a right to keep a functioning firearm in the home for defense. It did not mean or imply that people only have a right to own a firearm if it is only ever kept at home.

Next, she goes on to say that people carrying openly and people with CCW permits have been known to commit crimes (last stats I read showed lawful owners of firearms worked out to less than 1% of crimes committed with firearms), then goes on to say that eight children each day are killed from gun violence. But she fails to make the distinction between criminals and law-abiding citizens. She wants "gun-free dining" and essentially for restaurants to advertise that their patrons are defenseless. She's appealing to the shallow-minded and not considering that criminals won't care about business policies.

On her shirt are printed the words "Prevent Gun Violence". You do this successfully by executing violent felons, not by releasing them back on the street time after time. You do this by going after gangs, not by going after law-abiding people.

Her statement about the "community's rights" tells me she's not stupid or ignorant. Her real goal has nothing to do with stopping crime but with disarming good people. She is the classic "useful idiot".

alsaqr

12-11-2010 10:31 PM

Yep, she's the typical ultra-liberal blissninnie who dreams of a gun free commune.